I was reading Thomas Sowell's latest column on community service, when I realized that sadly, the present "right" is part of the problem he described. While he was writing about idiotic "community service" requirements, which are creations of the left, there are sadly many who claim to be on the right who have ideas every bit as destructive. There are some who take a page from (sometimes unbalanced) sci fi writer Robert Heinlein and propose limiting voting to those who do military service. There are others who favor an outright reinstatement of the draft.

Now, before I explain why neither is a very right wing position, let me explain in very pragmatic terms why both are lousy ideas. The voting idea (besides being taken from a dubious source of wisdom) is a bad idea because voting is not intended to confer the choice of government officials on some sort of elect. The idea of popular election exists for a very simple reason, to allow the transfer of power without violent overthrow. That is why a broad suffrage is a good idea. A narrow electorate tends to create a substantial disaffected group which may eventually lead to violent revolt. We can exclude some groups without too much danger, such as felons, non-citizens, children, but once you exclude a large number of citizens, the popular support for government plummets and we risk joining those third world nations which change government solely by violent overthrow, but do so frequently.

The second plan does not carry the risk of violent overthrow, but has two other risks. First, the problem that drafted soldiers are notably inefficient. The early Prussian army, for example, spent decades fighting in close order to prevent desertion, because it press ganged men into its ranks. Considerations of strategy had to give way to the all consuming fear of mass desertions, to the detriment of the army. The only things saving their army was that their contemporaries were almost as inefficient. Nor is that the only example. Throughout history, even into modern times, drafted troops have been the least efficient and least obedient, and they are rarely suitable for the highly trained, highly educated tasks that make up the bulk of today's military duties. So, if we restore the draft, we will end up with hundreds of thousands of unwilling recruits for whom we have no suitable tasks. Which leads tot he second problem, the care and feeding of these draftees, as well as the benefits they accumulate for their service. If they are drafted for a period long enough to qualify for the GI bill, that alone would break our already taxed budget. Not to mention the medical costs, the equipping, feeding, training, and paying of so many is simply a massive burden to take on during peace time.

Of course, none of that matters, as what is truly troubling is that those nominally on the right, those supposedly in favor of small government and personal freedom, would join the left in seeing citizens as the property of the state, believing the state has the right to dispose of their time. Not that this is out of character. Many on the right have been drifting ever more deeply into the same thought processes as the left, forgetting the individual and instead thing first of the state.

Just look at some of the reactions I got when I wrote about the authoritarian proposal to resolve the oil "crisis". Or look at the paleo-cons and their protectionist beliefs. Or the wing of the social conservatives who would gladly impose a regime of censorship. Or note how many on the right support ever more invasive violations of personal liberty in the name of the war on drugs.

Now, I am not a nutty libertarian. There are times when mutual defense requires some curtailment of freedoms. For example, I think we may not have gone far enough in the war on terror. Then again, I am not convinced that wire tapping is the massive threat to freedom so many seem to think. My concerns are protecting my life, liberty and property, not the secrecy of my discussions. (Oddly enough, those who are so scrupulous about protecting the contents of my phone calls and mail often have little concern for the other three.)

On the other hand, we still need to view the government first and foremost as the servant of the citizens. Its role is not to farther the aims of government but the well being of the citizens who make up the state. And its role in furthering that well being is to protect them form force and fraud.

Once you start postulating a state that can tell people where to trade, what to eat, what to say, where to sell, what to make, what to pay, you have created a liberal state, whether you claim to live on the right or left. A massive state will drift to totalitarian liberalism, no matter its origins. Whether created to censor television broadcasts or "protect" workers form competition, the logic is on the side of the liberals. Once you create a massive state, the arguments of the left will always win.

Which makes it even more sad to see confused nominal conservatives arguing for big government solutions. Not only have they forgotten what conservatism is all about, but in the process they have ended up fighting for results which will end up favoring the left.